Talk:Gṛhasthāśrama:Can a New Brāhmaṇa Caste Be Created
By Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swami
The fact that aupāsana is to be performed by all castes gives rise to the questions: "Why only aupāsana? Why should not all castes have the right to learn the Veda-s, chant the Gāyatrī and perform sacrifices?” On the other hand, we have atheists who want the Veda-s to be consigned to the flames and the idols of Gods like Gaṇeśa to be broken and, on the other, we have people calling themselves reformists who want to extend to all the right to perform Vaidika rites.
Do I not lambaste Brahmins for having become a degenerated class? Taking a cue from this, the reformers argue: "After all, it is the Brāhmaṇa who has become debased and it is he who has debased others also. Now, when new life is being breathed into the Vaidika dharma, why should Brāhmaṇa-s alone be given the right to it—Brāhmaṇa-s who have failed in their duty? All those castes that believe that the Veda-s and Vaidika works are essential to the well-being of mankind must be enabled to learn the Veda-s and perform Vaidika rites. All of them must have the right to wear the sacred thread and learn the scriptures."
Organisations like the Arya Samaj have accepted the right of all to learn the Veda-s and perform sacrifices. Here and there a Subrahmaṇya Bhārati or someone like him imparts brahmopadeśa to a pañcama. The reformists ask why the Veda-s cannot be made common to all.
This is not acceptable in the least. I am a representative and spokesman of the śāstra-s. It is my duty to state that this (making Vaidika dharma common to all castes) is not permitted by the sages who created the śāstra-s and assigned the duties special to each caste. They (the sages) were known for their spirit of sacrifice and impartiality and they had no interest other than the happiness of mankind.
A man sins in two ways. If he forsakes his hereditary karma, he commits one kind of sin—such a man is called a karma-bhraṣṭa. But if he forsakes his karma and takes up the karma of another (that is, if he practices the religious customs and duties of another caste) he becomes a karmāntara-praviṣṭa. According to the śāstra-s he is guilty of a greater offence than the karma-bhraṣṭa.
Why? There are two reasons.
An individual who forsakes his karma because he believes that varṇa-dharma itself is meaningless may be said to act out of conviction and he may be said to be obeying his conscience. In his action we may find some justification. But, in the matter of the śāstra-s, the question is not one of conscience. The question is: what about the man who opts for the customs and rites of others? He does so because he believes that the customs and rites to which he is born are not as good as those of the latter. To think that one vocation or one type of work is inferior to another, or superior to it, is not in keeping with modern ideas of socialism and the principle of dignity of labour. At the same time, it is not in accord with the śāstra-s. The karma-bhraṣṭa who discards all varṇa-dharma believes that the sages created a system not suitable to the times. He does not, however, think that they were partial to some castes. But not so the karmāntara-praviṣṭa who thinks that the sages were partial. He chooses another man's dharma because he believes that it is better for his inner advancement than his hereditary calling and dharma. His action implies that the sages practised deception by creating the division of varṇa-s. So his offence is greater.
It is true that Brāhmaṇa-s have gone astray. But what is the meaning of creating a new class of Brāhmaṇa-s? It amounts to saying, "He (the Brāhmaṇa) has forsaken his dharma. Now I will take it over." To take up another man's dharma, apart from forsaking one's own dharma, is a grave offence—worse than merely giving up one's own dharma. I have stated repeatedly that all karma has only one purpose: that of destroying one's ego-sense, ahaṃkāra. What is the foundation of varṇa-dharma? It is one's willingness to follow the vocation and dharma that belong to one by heredity without any consideration of one's likes and dislikes.
Such willingness is based on the realisation that the vocation and dharma that have come to us are according to the will of Īśvara, that they are manifested through the Veda-s and śāstra-s and that to practise them is to destroy our ego.
What does it mean to create a new caste, to create new Brāhmaṇa-s? However good the intention behind such a process may be—even if it be the desire that Vaidika works must be performed and that the sound of the Veda-s must fill the air—the ego-consciousness will obtrude in it like the nut jutting out from a cashew fruit.
Apart from this, however much you talk of equality and rationalism, the newly created Brāhmaṇa-s will suffer from an inferiority complex and will be racked by doubts as to whether they can practise their new dharma and whether they can chant the mantra-s and perform the rites in the same manner as people who are Brāhmaṇa-s by birth.
The Arya Samāj and other reformist organisations have for their part abolished caste and given everybody the right to learn the Veda-s. Then how is it that non-Brāhmaṇa-s have not joined these organisations in large numbers or taken to the study of the Veda-s? One important reason is a certain hesitation in joining anything new. Another, equally important, is that people believe that it is one thing to become an atheist but quite another for the old Vaidika customs to be changed.
So, though a couple of reformers may start a movement to throw open Vaidika learning to everybody, only four or five percent of the people will join them. The remaining 95 percent or so will continue to be in the old Hindu set-up. Also the few who join the new caste will have at heart a sense of fear and a feeling of inferiority. They will keep doubting whether their actions will yield the desired result. If that be so, how will their minds be pure? It is not only the ego-sense that makes the mind impure but fear, the feeling of inferiority and being racked by doubts. Rites performed in such a frame of mind will not serve the purpose of creating happiness in the world. Besides, members of the new caste are likely to develop conceited thinking that they are doing what Brāhmaṇa-s by birth ceased to do or could not do—there will be a spirit of challenge in their action. When they practise what others were practising (or were expected to practise), there will naturally be a desire on their part to make an exhibition of it. There will be no sincerity in their actions. All told, neither they nor the world will benefit from their works.
We must recognise facts for facts and not be carried away by emotions. Have I not told you about the power of the sound of the Veda-s? This sound is not produced easily by everybody in the right manner. What I say applies not only to the sound of Veda-s or the Vaidika language but also to other languages and their sound. Take the case of German or Urdu. Some words in these two languages are tongue-twisting. Telugu is spoken in our neighbourhood but we find it difficult to vocalise some of its sounds. Suppose a German child or a Muslim or Telugu child were to be born in Tamil Nadu. These children would be able to pronounce such words easily—that is German, Urdu or Telugu as the case may be—because to them they would come naturally.
However vehemently you may deny the existence of hereditary factors, you find evidence of the same every day in all spheres. Those who have been the custodians of the Veda-s all these centuries will find it easy to learn and chant the Veda-s despite the present gap of two or three generations in their tradition. The same cannot be said of other communities. The mantra-s will serve no purpose if they are wrongly enunciated. However well-intentioned the new class of people studying the Veda-s may be, their efforts will not be fruitful.
Another point. Here we have a class of people born into a dharma and practising it hereditarily for thousands of years and acquiring in the process certain qualities. If such people forsake that dharma, how would you expect others who are strangers to it to take their place, especially in the present new circumstances?
There are today two unfortunate developments in the country. One is that of the Brāhmaṇa-s giving up Vaidika learning and Vaidika works, and the second that of other communities wanting to practise the Vaidika dharma. It is difficult to say which of the two is worse. Not performing the duty that belongs to us by birth is an offence. But, as the Lord says in the Gītā, to take up the duty of another is a greater offence.
Svadharme nidhanaṁ śreyaḥ para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ. It is better to die within the sphere of one's own duty than to take up another's duty. Perilous and fearful is the duty of other men. Since death is certain anyway, if we carry out the duty that is properly ours there will be no rebirth for us. What do we mean by saying that another man's dharma is fearful? If a person practises another man's dharma he will be pushed into hell. Suppose such a man does not believe in a certain place called hell, we may then take it that he will suffer infernal sorrow in this or next birth. Apart from this, not being an atheist, he will be eaten up by the fear that he is perhaps committing a sin by pursuing another man's dharma. Were he not a non-believer he would not have faith in the Veda-s and śāstra-s and would not in the first place take up the Brāhmaṇa's vocation. So the one who has faith in the Veda-s would be constantly nagged by the worry: "The śāstra-s proclaim that the sound of the Veda-s will bring good to the world. But the same śāstra-s proclaim, don't they, that the pursuit of another man's dharma is fearful?"
The point to be noted is that if you believe in the śāstra-s you must believe in them fully. If you are an atheist you could of course reject all of them. But to make a show of being very clever and twist the śāstra-s as you like, accepting some parts or rejecting or changing some others, is an offence more grave than that of being an atheist. To think that Mother Veda should dance to our tune is also a great offence. Learning the Veda-s in such an attitude is tantamount to ridiculing them.
I am not angry with reformists, nor do I suspect their motives. They go wrong because of their ignorance or thoughtlessness. If they wish to pull down the fence to go to the other side, they must think of the possibility of the few still remaining there walking over to this side.
If people truly feel that their present vocation is as honourable as the practice of Vaidika dharma, they will not think of taking up some calling other than their own. "Brāhmaṇa-s have forsaken the Veda-s. So the world is not filled with the sound of the Veda-s which is so essential to its well-being. To fill this vacuum a new Brāhmaṇa class must be created." Those who want to take the place of the Brāhmaṇa-s, who are traditionally duty-bound to follow the Vaidika dharma, will have a feeling of conceit, not to speak of a spirit of challenge and a sense of inferiority also. If you really want to work for the goal of making the Veda-s a living reality again, your efforts must be directed towards turning those who were engaged in the preservation of the Vaidika heritage back to the dharma to which they hereditarily belong.
If I criticise Brāhmaṇa-s, it is not because I feel that they cannot be corrected or that I have washed my hands of them. Nor do I feel that Brāhmaṇa-s alone as a caste are responsible for all ills of today. If I administer them a reproof now and then for their having given up their dharma during Islamic and British rule and for being lured today by the glitter of modern civilization, it does not mean that they are to be wholly blamed for everything. Placed as they are in today's circumstances, any caste or class would have done the same. Those who find them guilty now think that they would acquit themselves better if they were in their place. But they too would have been compelled to make the same mistakes by the force of circumstances. If people hereditarily engaged in intellectual pursuits find themselves unable to apply their minds to Ātmic matters and instead find themselves involved in mundane affairs, it means a topsy-turvy slide-down.
I do not justify such behaviour nor the descent into worldly affairs from the heights of spirituality. Nowadays reformists try to justify even prostitution on psychological grounds. Similarly, I wish to point out that there is a psychological explanation for the degeneration of Brāhmaṇa-s also. If I criticise Brāhmaṇa-s, it does not mean that others should join in the attack, thinking that they (the Brāhmaṇa-s) alone are worthless people. It is the duty of these others to make Brāhmaṇa-s worthy of their caste. After all, during the past forty or fifty years, Brāhmaṇa-s have been an easy target of attack and ridicule. How silently they have suffered all this, also the humiliation at the hands of their detractors. Until some four or five generations ago, Brāhmaṇa-s were the guardians of all our Ātmic wealth, all our arts. Considering this, is it not the duty of others to bring them back to the practice of their true dharma? They must be tactfully reminded of the high dharma they had once pursued and the spirit of sacrifice for which they were known.
It is likely that in the past a few ignorant Brāhmaṇa-s treated other communities harshly. This is no reason why their descendants today should pay for it and be maligned and harassed in a spirit of vengefulness. It must also be borne in mind that Brāhmaṇa-s themselves have been in the forefront in the fight against "the old unjust practices" and in giving other communities a high place in society. So there is no point in fuelling the flames of hatred. Nor can it be claimed truthfully that such hatred is part of Tamil culture.
Unfortunately, what Brāhmaṇa-s did in the name of reforms resulted in the wrong kind of equality for, instead of raising people belonging to the lower strata to a higher level, it had the effect of bringing the upper classes downward. Equality can be of two types: in the first, all occupy a high level in society; in the other, all occupy a low level. To carry a load uphill is difficult but it is easy to push it down. Quality has suffered in the attempt to create equality. It is not desirable to have that kind of equality in which everyone does the same kind of work. Nor should it be thought that there is no equality in a system in which the various vocations, the various types of work, are divided among different groups of people. I have already spoken a great deal on the subject. Our endeavour must be to create unity in diversity, not uniformity.
It is important to remember that neither hatred of Brāhmaṇa-s nor dislike of Sanskrit has ever been a part of Tamil culture and civilization. Sanskrit is the repository of Ātmic and religious śāstra-s, a storehouse of poetry and works on arts. Everyone must learn to regard it as our own language. The need for the existence of Brāhmaṇya as a separate entity must be recognised. This is essential to the preservation of the Veda-s, the performance of sacrifices, etc., whose purpose is the good of mankind. Today the Veda-s, the Upaniṣad-s and so on are available in print. Anybody can read them and try to understand them. But everybody need not learn to chant the Veda-s; it takes many years to do so. Everybody need not also perform sacrifices.
There ought to be an element of humility on the part of those who wish to carry out reforms; there must be sincerity of purpose. Then no need will arise to go contrary to the śāstra-s.